Anybody know of any good web site that delivers complete paradigms and synopses for verbs? I know all about the Berkeley site. Is there any other? Maybe a German or a French one? Ideally, I would like to enter a verb and get out a complete paradigm or synopsis. Maybe Perseus does it and I am unaware?

How about books? Smyth has 20 pages or so. And I am ordering Tutti i verbi greci, but I don't know what is in it. Can anybody tell me?

How about books with answer keys with lots of exercises for synopses? What is a good one besides Mastronarde?

"Tutti..." does have some paradigm charts at the front but its beauty is in the remainder of the book. It lists alphabetically "most" verbs in their declined form that could pose difficulties. When you come across some form that you are finding it impossible to find in the lexicon, Tutti comes to the rescue and tells you that it is the pf. ind. m 3 sg. of whatever verb. I suppose that you could do the same with Perseus, but I think you will find Tutti to be more efficient. With that said, I have had fellow students complain that they couldn't find their verb in Tutti, which is why I said, "most" verbs. If you cannot find it, it is almost certain that the form is regular and you need to slap yourself for not memorizing your regular paradigms to begin with.

I implore you, as far as verb paradigms go, to make it a point to do a considerable amount of memorization rather that using some app. The reward in the end is immeasurable. Yes, memorizing all the irregular verbs is somewhat of a pain, not to mention the regular ones. And yes, I'm sure all of us could find more pleasurable uses of our time. But then, here we are, learning Ancient Greek; what better way to spend your time!

I want to do a synopsis a day for a few months at least, but I need a way to check my answers. A synopsis has about 60 entries and I don't want to have to enter every one in Perseus to check my answers. Mastronarde, for example, has five relatively complete synopses in the text+answer key. Smyth has a couple. I would like an "app" that spits out synopses so I can check my answers. But there probably is no such app. Or is there? I wonder if a computer programmer could use Perseus files to make one? Somebody seems to have done a lot of work with Perseus once upon a time.

But short of that, I would like to know of a good text book with synopses, questions and answers. I prefer that to random drills a la Berkeley web site, although those are fine. I think synopses are more edifying.

Perseus recognizes ἔρριφα but not ἔρριφας. Does that mean that the second person doesn't exist in any text? I can't even use Perseus to test my synopses the hard way! How on earth did they put that thing together? Strange how seemingly only existing forms are recognized while at the same time they don't tell you exactly what form you are facing in an actual text. Is there a history of Greek texts and computers somewhere on the internet?

I can see that this is annoying you, and I apologize for being perhaps a bit too blunt in my previous response, but I do hope you will take heart. For I don't understand why you need to use anything but the synopsis for a regular omega verb to check your synopsis of ῥίπτω? It follows the pattern. That is why Smyth, et. al. don't give you more than the basic paradigm for an omega verb, a mi verb, and contracted verbs, as well as those few verbs that are truly irregular in many forms.

For a more accessible grammar, which includes a nice list of the 101 most frequent irregular verbs in their principal parts, you might try the "Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek." It also lists the parts to 75 other irregulars that are less frequent but which you may come across. You can safely assume, I think, that if you know the principal parts, and it is not one of the irregulars with full synopsis in any grammar, your verb will follow the endings you see in the example synopses for omega, contracted, and mi verbs.

Baker wrote:I can see that this is annoying you, and I apologize for being perhaps a bit too blunt in my previous response, but I do hope you will take heart. For I don't understand why you need to use anything but the synopsis for a regular omega verb to check your synopsis of ῥίπτω? It follows the pattern. That is why Smyth, et. al. don't give you more than the basic paradigm for an omega verb, a mi verb, and contracted verbs, as well as those few verbs that are truly irregular in many forms.

I wrote a long response, but decided to put it on ice.

1) How long would it take you to do a full synopsis of ῥίπτω for 3 person plural? That is about 50 items including imperatives, future perfects, participles, all infinitives.2) How many mistakes do you think you would make?3) How long do you think it would take you to check your 50 items using Smyth?

Alright. First I would set up my synopsis just like Smyth does for λύω, considering that ῥίπτω is also an omega verb. Then, considering I have not memorized the principal parts for this verb, I would look them up in the Appendix; I would write them down in a convenient location on my page. Then I would plod my way thorough filling in the 3rd person plural for each tense. I would make mistakes, though not more than 49 Then I would take Smyth, put it side by side with my synopsis and check my work in about 3-4 minutes or less, depending on the number of errors. I would leave enough room for such synopses in omega verbs to fill in the 3rd person plural of other verbs, if I chose.

Cheers,Eliot

Update: I left out an estimate of how long it would take me to make the synopsis. I'm thinking it would take about 15 to 20 for an omega or mi verb ( longer for a contracted verb).

Baker wrote:Alright. First I would set up my synopsis just like Smyth does for λύω, considering that ῥίπτω is also an omega verb. Then, considering I have not memorized the principal parts for this verb, I would look them up in the Appendix; I would write them down in a convenient location on my page. Then I would plod my way thorough filling in the 3rd person plural for each tense. I would make mistakes, though not more than 49 Then I would take Smyth, put it side by side with my synopsis and check my work in about 3-4 minutes or less, depending on the number of errors. I would leave enough room for such synopses in omega verbs to fill in the 3rd person plural of other verbs, if I chose.

Cheers,Eliot

Update: I left out an estimate of how long it would take me to make the synopsis. I'm thinking it would take about 15 to 20 for an omega or mi verb ( longer for a contracted verb).

How is this better than what pster already mentioned? As far as morphological analysis, this software is $29 and does not seem to be any improvement over Perseus, as you still have to enter each form one-by-one. It also does not seem to recognize the original form he asked about, ἔρριφας. The inflection charts are no better than other sources he listed, e.g. Mastronarde, et. al.

Too bad, because I would wager that if you did what you describe, 20 minutes to write out the synopsis, and 3-4 minutes to check it, that there would still be at least two if not ten mistakes that you missed when checking!! Why don't you give it a whirl? You'll have bragging rights! One of us will learn something.

I'm playing with it now. Looks intersting. Only gives 1st person singular and left out breathing mark for riptw. No infinitives, future perfects, or participles on the chart.

UPDATE: I was wrong, No breathing marks an no future perfects, but otherwise, pretty impressive. Thanks ahab. This is very good software indeed. As far as I know Perseus doesn't generate tables like this. So did it include the dictionary and all the morphological stuff when I downloaded it?

UPDATE 2: Does not contain periphrastic forms. Why not if you are going to spit out entire paradigms like this? Still very impressive. I think this is must own software. And it is free! THANKS AHAB! This what the doctor ordered!

Last edited by pster on Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:55 am, edited 4 times in total.

How is this better than what pster already mentioned? ...It also does not seem to recognize the original form he asked about, ἔρριφας. The inflection charts are no better than other sources he listed, e.g. Mastronarde, et. al.

Eliot

It doesn't seem to recognize it on the first tab. But it does come out when you generate the tables on the third. So better than Perseus and Mastronarde. WE HAVE A WINNER!

How is this better than what pster already mentioned? ...It also does not seem to recognize the original form he asked about, ἔρριφας. The inflection charts are no better than other sources he listed, e.g. Mastronarde, et. al.

Eliot

It doesn't seem to recognize it on the first tab. But it does come out when you generate the tables on the third. So better than Perseus and Mastronarde. WE HAVE A WINNER!

Glad to hear this can be of at least some help to you.

You should be able to enter ἔρριφας on the morphological tab in order to find the dictionary form, but as you've indicated, the program does fail to recognize it. I believe the author of this program is still continuing to support it with updates. Will drop him an email regarding this. Perhaps he will be able to correct this in an update.

Also, it is my understanding that the dictionary is included in the download so that you do not have to be connected to the Internet in order to use.

In the past I have mainly used Kalos for generating inflection charts and printing them so I can keep them close by when memorizing them.

Why, he's at worst your poet who sings how GreeksThat never were, in Troy which never was,Did this or the other impossible great thing!---Robert Browning

Well that's no good. Program must be buggier than I realized. Sorry now that I recommended it to you.

No, don't be. I will use it. I wish I new how it worked. I thought maybe somebody took all the extant greek forms and put them in a file with what form they were. Isn't that the way Perseus works? But now it looks like somebody actually wrote a program that conjugates the verbs.

Maybe they are Koine forms? Where can I find a good Koine conjugation chart for αιρεω? Is the Koine aorist different from the Attic?

Seems to do a better job with the abridged γίγνομαι, giving in addition to Attic, Doric, Ionic, poetic, and "later."

Not very well. Just exchanged a couple of emails with maker of that program. It has been around for many years. First tried the program about 7 or 8 years ago. It was not very good at that time. The interface has improved greatly, but it looks like there are still some underlying problems with it.

Why, he's at worst your poet who sings how GreeksThat never were, in Troy which never was,Did this or the other impossible great thing!---Robert Browning

Not very well. Just exchanged a couple of emails with maker of that program. It has been around for many years. First tried the program about 7 or 8 years ago. It was not very good at that time. The interface has improved greatly, but it looks like there are still some underlying problems with it.

Not very well. Just exchanged a couple of emails with maker of that program. It has been around for many years. First tried the program about 7 or 8 years ago. It was not very good at that time. The interface has improved greatly, but it looks like there are still some underlying problems with it.

Do you have the email? The sales one doesn't seem to work any longer.

This is the only one I have been able to find: gonzalo_diaz@yahoo.com. Haven't used it in some time. Still haven't gotten around to emailing him a message on the problems noted on this thread. Hope it works for you.

Why, he's at worst your poet who sings how GreeksThat never were, in Troy which never was,Did this or the other impossible great thing!---Robert Browning

Scribo wrote:Made some mistakes in my synopsis, in the duel and also in some of the imperatives. ALWAYS THE IMPERATIVES!?! TI PRAGMA ESTI TOUTO !?!?!?!

How did the fut. perf. m/p participle(s) go?

Not bad, I'm pretty well drilled in general. I'll try to scan up my sheets so people can see what mistakes etc I'm making. My hand writing is pretty rough and I can spot a few accentuation errors but shhh.

Scribo wrote:Not bad, I'm pretty well drilled in general. I'll try to scan up my sheets so people can see what mistakes etc I'm making. My hand writing is pretty rough and I can spot a few accentuation errors but shhh.

Feels strange drilling a form that only occurs once. It is in Thucydides. I CAN'T WAIT!

I've used Kalos almost every day for months. It crashes. It gives wrong forms at times. But it's the best thing I know of. I'm feeling so grateful, someday I'll probably send in the money for it.

I just tried Unicorn. Maybe the programming is too old, but it doesn't work well for me. I wish it did. Being able to spell check polytonic Greek would be brilliant. Maybe there's a tech savvy person out there who can answer:

1. Is the Unicorn programming stable enough to be worthwhile using in the future?2. If yes, then am I right that it would be an easy thing to add massive amounts of words to the dictionary?

The way it looks to me, words could be added in the dictionary very easily if the only purpose was to spell check. The entries wouldn't have parsing and glosses, but I'm less interested in that than I am in verifying that a) the form I've composed exists, and b) I haven't made spelling mistakes.